Legal Opinion
Kurtz v. Blatt
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 14, 1920PublishedCited by 4 opinions
In Equity. Separate suits by Alfred Kurtz and the Hat Dining Board of Trade, Incorporated, against Meyer Blatt and Nathan Silberstein, copartners, and against the Columbia Hat Frame Company, for infringement of Kurtz patent, No. 1,216,140, February 13, 1917, for hat lining.
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, District Judge.
The patent deals with hat linings, and the nature of the subject-matter is sufficiently disclosed by the two claims in suit, which are as follows:
“1. A hat lining comprising a crown piece, a side piece, an uncovered cord exposed between said crown piece and side piece, and means for securing said crown piece, side piece, and cord together for forming an ornate seam between said crown piece and side piece.
“2. A hat lining comprising a crown piece; a side piece; an uncovered cord exposed between said crown piece and side piece; and means for securing said crown piece, side…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Gable v. Vonnegut Machinery Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1921
- P. E. Sharpless Co. v. Crawford Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Cordley v. Richardson Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922